> David Whipp wrote:
> > > A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program
> > > in than some that do.
> >
> > The obvious reply is: "There's more than one way to do it"
> To which the obvious reply is:
>
> 'Although the Perl Slogan is "There's More Than One Way
> to Do It", I hesitate to make 10 ways to do something.'
> - Larry Wall
Just an off topic remark... Does anyone know where I can get
a copy of all these little gems from? :)
> IOW, simply to have AWTDI is one of the worst reasons to add a
> feature. If it doesn't make the language *better*, LEAVE IT OUT.
The same is true for anything... Sometimes a minimalist approach
is the right way to do it... The problem is to make sure when
using a minimalist approach that you don't make it too small...
Personally, I'd prefer that the feature creep doesn't rear its
ugly head with Perl 6...
Oh, and BTW, please define "better"... I'm sure my criteria for
defining "better" with regards to a language are different to
yours... ;) For the purposes of this article, I'm gonna assume
that "better" means "what Larry determines to be a useful
addition to the language"...
> > I'm sure you don't want to write "$a = new Integer '32'".
> Of course. That would be unbearably absurd.
> But how often do you have to write expressions that
> operate on three or more URLs? Or even two?
> How many perl instrinsics return URLs? How many
> perl intrinsics operate on URLs in any way?
> So are we to the point of making LWP a built-in?
> I hope not.
So do I... Not all Perl applications are built around
CGI/Web applications... :) That's what "libraries" are
for... ;)
*knock knock* Hello? Abstraction? Are you there????
Greg
